Summary

These data focus on rates of criminal offending obtained
through the use of self-report surveys. Specifically, the study
investigates whether two different types of self-report surveys
produce different estimates of lambda, an individual's frequency of
criminal offending. The surveys, which were administered during
personal interviews with inmates in Nebraska prisons, differed in how
respondents were asked about their frequency of criminal offending.
The more detailed survey asked respondents to indicate their offenses
on a month-by-month basis for the reporting period. The less detailed
survey only asked respondents to indicate their offending for the
entire reporting period. These data also provide information on the
relationship between race and offending frequencies, the rates of
offending over time and by crime category, and the individual's
subjective probability of punishment and offending frequency. The
specific crimes targeted in this collection include burglary, business
robbery, personal robbery, assault, theft, forgery, fraud, drug
dealing, and rape. All respondents were asked questions on criminal
history, substance abuse, attitudes about crime and the judicial
system, predictions of future criminal behavior, and demographic
information, including age, race, education, and marital status.

Time Period(s)

Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose

In the late 1970s the RAND Corporation conducted
a survey of inmates, which became known as the RAND Second Inmate
Survey (SURVEY OF JAIL AND PRISON INMATES, 1978: CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN,
TEXAS [ICPSR 8169]), to estimate lambda, an individual's frequency of
offending. The current study is essentially a replication of the RAND
study, with certain modifications, and was designed to address
criticisms of the original work and to provide more detailed
information on rates of criminal offending. The principal
investigators gathered data to address a number of issues. First, they
wanted to determine if lambda, calculated from responses to a modified
survey, differs from lambda determined by the RAND method. The
modified survey differs from the RAND survey in that it contains more
detailed calendars for reporting periods of criminal activity. The
more detailed calendars are believed to provide better cues for
recalling past criminal activity. Also, the RAND data were collected
through self-administered questionnaires. The current data were
collected through personal interviews with prisoners. Personal
interviews were conducted to reduce the amount of missing and
ambiguous responses found in self-administered surveys. A criticism of
the RAND study is that missing and ambiguous responses may have led to
inflated values of lambda. Next, the investigators explored whether
the RAND study's results regarding race and individual offending
frequencies could be replicated. Whether rates of criminal activity
vary over time and by crime category were also studied. In addition,
the investigators gathered data to investigate the relationship
between an individual's subjective probability of punishment and the
frequency of offending. The results of the research should be useful
in developing crime intervention strategies.

Study Design

A central purpose of the study was to compare
lambda determined by the RAND study with lambda determined by the
investigators' method. Seven hundred male prisoners in Nebraska were
randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group.
The control group was interviewed using the RAND method. The
experimental group was interviewed using the investigators' more
detailed month-by-month reporting method. Each interviewing method
required determining the respondent's "street months." Under the
RAND method, respondents were shown a 24-month calendar. Only the time
period prior to their arrest for their current conviction was
relevant. The interviewer crossed off any months during which the
respondent had been incarcerated in that time period. The remaining
months were the street months, the time available to commit
crimes. The same procedure was used for the experimental group, except
that a 36-month calendar was used. This was done so that a longer
period of time was available to study variability in offending
rates. For comparison of lambda based on the two methods, lambda of
the experimental group was based on the 24-month calendar. Under each
interviewing method, respondents were asked if they had committed any
of certain target offenses (burglary, business robbery, personal
robbery, assault, theft, auto theft, forgery, fraud, drug dealing, and
rape) during their street months. With the RAND method, respondents
were asked how often they had committed each target crime during the
total street months. Under the experimental method, respondents
indicated the specific months during which they committed the target
offenses and their frequency of offending by month. In order to have a
larger sample with detailed information, those in the control group
were also given a supplemental survey after completing their original
survey. The supplement asked the frequency of offense questions using
the month-by-month method of the experimental group. The monthly data
are available for 658 of the 700 inmates interviewed.

Sample

Cohort sample consisting of 700 inmates
admitted to the Diagnostic and Evaluation Unit of the Nebraska
Department of Corrections during a nine-month period.

Universe

Criminal offenders in Nebraska.

Unit(s) of Observation

Individuals.

Data Source

personal interviews

Data Type(s)

survey data

experimental data

Description of Variables

Topics covered in the interviews include criminal
history, substance abuse, attitudes about crime and the judicial
system, predictions of future criminal behavior, and demographic
information.

Response Rates

Interviews were conducted with 700 inmates
admitted to the Diagnostic and Evaluation Unit of the Nebraska
Department of Corrections. This represents 90 percent of the prisoners
admitted to the unit during a nine-month period. A total of 746
inmates were asked to be interviewed, and 700 (94 percent) agreed to
participate.

Presence of Common Scales

Original Release Date

1993-10-02

Version Date

1994-02-17

Version History

1993-10-02 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Performed consistency checks.

Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.

Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.